Pushing sentient coffee beans aside, non-human animals cannot give informed consent, so all exploitation of them inherently violates consent. That being said, I wouldn’t necessarily describe the “core of veganism” the way @restless@hexbear.net did, so I get what you mean.
To get back on topic, when you make the core of the issue exploitation, I’d say this is overall a vegan scene, and the coffee nipple brew itself appears to be vegan.
Think about it: the coffee bean isn’t actually being exploited for his coffee nipple brew. So what about the other claim that restless was getting at—that Mordecai and Rigby are having their consent violated? Well, if we want to keep it about the actual core issue veganism aims to tackle, exploitation, let’s rephrase it as, “Are Mordecai and Rigby being exploited here?”
When Leslie Cross gave a definition in the writing, In Search of Veganism, he defined veganism this way:
Veganism may therefore be defined as “the principle of the emancipation of the animals from exploitation by man.”
He defines the terms here:
Emancipation: the state of being set free. Exploitation: the act of using for selfish purposes. Animals: sentient animate creatures other than man.
Now, the coffee bean isn’t a human (“man”), but let’s neglect that aspect for a second and see if it holds up as exploitation even without that caveat.
If exploitation is the act of using for selfish purposes, you can’t exactly say that Mordecai and Rigby are being used for selfish purposes here, at least not in the context of the coffee bean shooting the nipple brew in their mouths. What benefit is the coffee bean trying to extract from shooting the nipple brew in their mouths? It doesn’t appear to benefit him in and of itself or even serve as a form of use at all.
That being said, I forgot the entire context of this episode, but if the contract terms contained anything exploitative, then maybe we could say they were being exploited that way, but as far as the act of the coffee bean shooting nipple brew into their mouth goes, it’s all vegan.
Another point to mention is that if the coffee bean were being held against his will and forcefully “milked” for people to make use of his nipple brew, that’d definitely be exploitation of a sentient animate creature other than man, so it wouldn’t be vegan in that context.
I non-human animals cannot give informed consent, so all exploitation of them inherently violates consent
I’d say that it’s absurd to discuss consent from something that cannot possibly give it, like a lock consenting to having a key jammed in it or a car consenting to being driven.
This is a false equivalence because those are non-sentient objects being compared to sentient individuals. By your logic, having laws regarding a child’s inability to give infomred consent is “absurd to discuss.”
Also, it would maybe be some degree of more absurd if some non-vegans didn’t actually try to argue things like “My horse consents to being ridden!” but they do.
Taking that argument to its logical conclusion doesn’t hold up because, if we follow that reasoning, we’d have to ignore any laws protecting humans with cognitive impairments from having their consent violated.
Furthermore, insisting that consent is only relevant to sapient beings and not sentient ones seems like an overly rigid interpretation of a definition, done just to push a point that doesn’t really have material relevance. One could argue that animals can still express forms of consent, but even then, it wouldn’t be informed consent, so there’s no real reason to insist on that specific definition in the first place. Such clarifications, however, are important specifically because some people do try to suggest that animals can (give informed) consent, and they’re wrong.
What I don’t quite understand, though, is why you’re so fixated on debating semantics around terms like “consent” and “sentience” in the context of a shitpost about a weird Regular Show scene. It really comes off as if you’re just debating for the sake of debating, which certainly makes you seem rather insufferable.
What I don’t quite understand, though, is why you’re so fixated on debating semantics around terms like “consent” and “sentience” in the context of a shitpost about a weird Regular Show scene. It really comes off as if you’re just debating for the sake of debating, which certainly makes you seem rather insufferable
I’m a trained logician, and I find the topic of veganism to be almost endlessly fascinating. if you think it’s insufferable, please disengage.
we’d have to ignore any laws protecting humans with cognitive impairments from having their consent violated.
only if those laws are rooted in an assumption of human sentience… they’re not. they are rooted in a belief in rights, which I think is probably misguided, but the laws themselves would not be effected by such an understanding
I’ve been pretty busy, personally, but I’ve been meaning to address more of your points further up the thread. if you’re happy to continue here or in any of the other responses I’ve made, that’s fine. I might still go back and address some of your points.
I disagree. If we take the rejection of all exploitation of animals as a core facet, which the vegan society does in their definition (aside: am I missing something about why they get to be the arbiters of the unique definition of veganism?):
“Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.”
and consider that humans are animals who can consent to actions that would be exploitative in other contexts, especially without consent (e.g., solving geometry problems, listening to or performing music, creative writing, hiking), we see consent emerge. We don’t think about it in decisions with respect to non-human animals because they can’t consent.
(e.g., solving geometry problems, listening to or performing music, creative writing, hiking
to steelman you, the strongest case, I think, is breast feeding. but that is exploitation by the barest definition, and the vegan society has never, to my knowledge, made any exception in it’s definition regarding that.
no synonym for it appears. I suppose most vegans interpret it in the penumbra, but it’s not a core facet
Pushing sentient coffee beans aside, non-human animals cannot give informed consent, so all exploitation of them inherently violates consent. That being said, I wouldn’t necessarily describe the “core of veganism” the way @restless@hexbear.net did, so I get what you mean.
To get back on topic, when you make the core of the issue exploitation, I’d say this is overall a vegan scene, and the coffee nipple brew itself appears to be vegan.
Think about it: the coffee bean isn’t actually being exploited for his coffee nipple brew. So what about the other claim that restless was getting at—that Mordecai and Rigby are having their consent violated? Well, if we want to keep it about the actual core issue veganism aims to tackle, exploitation, let’s rephrase it as, “Are Mordecai and Rigby being exploited here?”
When Leslie Cross gave a definition in the writing, In Search of Veganism, he defined veganism this way:
He defines the terms here:
Now, the coffee bean isn’t a human (“man”), but let’s neglect that aspect for a second and see if it holds up as exploitation even without that caveat.
If exploitation is the act of using for selfish purposes, you can’t exactly say that Mordecai and Rigby are being used for selfish purposes here, at least not in the context of the coffee bean shooting the nipple brew in their mouths. What benefit is the coffee bean trying to extract from shooting the nipple brew in their mouths? It doesn’t appear to benefit him in and of itself or even serve as a form of use at all.
That being said, I forgot the entire context of this episode, but if the contract terms contained anything exploitative, then maybe we could say they were being exploited that way, but as far as the act of the coffee bean shooting nipple brew into their mouth goes, it’s all vegan.
Another point to mention is that if the coffee bean were being held against his will and forcefully “milked” for people to make use of his nipple brew, that’d definitely be exploitation of a sentient animate creature other than man, so it wouldn’t be vegan in that context.
I’d say that it’s absurd to discuss consent from something that cannot possibly give it, like a lock consenting to having a key jammed in it or a car consenting to being driven.
This is a false equivalence because those are non-sentient objects being compared to sentient individuals. By your logic, having laws regarding a child’s inability to give infomred consent is “absurd to discuss.”
Also, it would maybe be some degree of more absurd if some non-vegans didn’t actually try to argue things like “My horse consents to being ridden!” but they do.
sentience has nothing to do with consent. since consent must be informed, it is a subject limited to sapient individuals.
Taking that argument to its logical conclusion doesn’t hold up because, if we follow that reasoning, we’d have to ignore any laws protecting humans with cognitive impairments from having their consent violated.
Furthermore, insisting that consent is only relevant to sapient beings and not sentient ones seems like an overly rigid interpretation of a definition, done just to push a point that doesn’t really have material relevance. One could argue that animals can still express forms of consent, but even then, it wouldn’t be informed consent, so there’s no real reason to insist on that specific definition in the first place. Such clarifications, however, are important specifically because some people do try to suggest that animals can (give informed) consent, and they’re wrong.
What I don’t quite understand, though, is why you’re so fixated on debating semantics around terms like “consent” and “sentience” in the context of a shitpost about a weird Regular Show scene. It really comes off as if you’re just debating for the sake of debating, which certainly makes you seem rather insufferable.
I’m a trained logician, and I find the topic of veganism to be almost endlessly fascinating. if you think it’s insufferable, please disengage.
Are you also a vegan?
no.
Then I will most certainly be disengaging.
have a nice day
only if those laws are rooted in an assumption of human sentience… they’re not. they are rooted in a belief in rights, which I think is probably misguided, but the laws themselves would not be effected by such an understanding
I’ve been pretty busy, personally, but I’ve been meaning to address more of your points further up the thread. if you’re happy to continue here or in any of the other responses I’ve made, that’s fine. I might still go back and address some of your points.
id say exploitation can be defined as “use”. a community exploits a well. plants exploit sunlight.
I disagree. If we take the rejection of all exploitation of animals as a core facet, which the vegan society does in their definition (aside: am I missing something about why they get to be the arbiters of the unique definition of veganism?):
and consider that humans are animals who can consent to actions that would be exploitative in other contexts, especially without consent (e.g., solving geometry problems, listening to or performing music, creative writing, hiking), we see consent emerge. We don’t think about it in decisions with respect to non-human animals because they can’t consent.
to steelman you, the strongest case, I think, is breast feeding. but that is exploitation by the barest definition, and the vegan society has never, to my knowledge, made any exception in it’s definition regarding that.
this is incoherent and you should reexamine your first principles
the vegan society makes no such carve-out for consent, and I see no reason to grant it.
the vegan society also says you should be vegan, and I see no reason to grant an exception to this
they do, but I find their reasoning to be specious
Your logical incoherence is a violation of Rule 3 of c/badposting